[XPERIA X10 General] 1Learning:
I don't understand. Yes, Google has updated Android - but isn't that what you're supposed to do? Update the OS so that new features are implemented and security issues are plugged? Until Android 3.0, there has been one continually updated Android version, there was 1.6, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 - these are all updates of the same Android, they are not different OS (if that is what you mean by the version after version). To use the Win XP service pack analogy, Win XP SP1 and Win XP SP2 are both the same OS, just updates of an underlying OS - 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 is the same (more or less). Google updated Eclair by providing 2.2. As I understand it, none of the Android devices (except for 3.0) really have any "minimum" specs so for Google it is not about new devices but volume of devices. Android 3.0 is where Google itself is doing the fragmenting for tablets and phones.

The fragmentation right now where some phones are officially on 2.2, others are on 2.1 is from the phone manufacturers (and phone companies). Google releases the Android update but then it is the phone manufacturers (and phone companies) that have to implement the updates into their devices b/c of the customizations they did (Google updates its own phones pretty well with its "vanilla" Android).

According to SE, they locked things down and embedded their proprietary software so deep into Android that they couldn't (or wouldn't) update past 2.1. There is no need for new hardware to run 2.3 or even 2.2. The X10 has sufficient hardware to run the OS - the awesome developers have shown that (only partially b/c it is still the 2.1 kernel if I understand it correctly). The X10's specs are on par, give or take, with other phones that are officially on 2.2 right now and aside from a few things it seems to be virtually identical to the Arc which will be on 2.3. It is SE who decided against it, rightly or wrongly.

Google has their motives - they are a corporation too. Their base revenue model is based not upon hardware sales but ad sales. So they don't care that much about "new" devices as much as getting as many devices running its OS as possible so you can use their services (with ads); so yes there is a component of wanting the person to upgrade but it is more about volume than having the same person upgrade - there isn't an increase in usage if it is the same person simply upgrading his/her phone but if there are 10 more people using the OS, then that is better for them.

The fragmentation is not directly their fault, the phone manufacturers could have made parts of their customized software into widgets (which some have) as opposed to becoming core parts of the OS and it would have been easier to update but some didn't....exhibit A, SE.

Google has finally stated somewhere that they are going to minimize stuff like this happening as much as they can now by 1. attempting to limit major updates (though they didn't quite elaborate on what is considered major) and 2. separating the Android OS into parts so that there is the core part which can not be touched or "embedded" into by the manufacturers. This should mean that the underlying OS can be easier updated by Google and the phone manufacturers while leaving the customized parts untouched.

For Google, at core, free open source is that you don't have to pay them to use the OS. After that, it is open to interpretation. Google is simply providing the OS (and the updates) but it is the phone manufacturers that implement the OS (and their respective customizations). So if Google has provided the code to update to 2.2 (or 2.3) to SE but SE decided not to implement the code, then wouldn't that be SE fault b/c it is their choice to not do it? I'm not asking whether it is right or wrong for SE to not update the OS nor whether their reasons for not updating are valid, those are separate questions. This is where things like the security update comes in - Google patched the exploit and provided the code to SE, now is SE going to use it?